Minor editorial changes

[iherman]

(While reviewing the spec.)

• Copied some CSS for simple tables from the DID core spec. Made the tables more readable (with alternate colors, visually separating the rows)
• The reference to did core should use the respec/specref pattern using data-cite, to be in line with other usages.

---

Preview | Diff

[peacekeeper]

Thanks, I think this addresses #112 ?

Just wondering if the data-cite should be using did-core#... or DID#... ?

[iherman]

Just wondering if the data-cite should be using did-core#... or DID#... ?

yes, did# (or DID#) is an alias to did-core in specref, so it is a possibility, but it also does not really change anything. It is a matter of taste, really.

The question is rather whether we want, at some point, refer to did-1.1 (which is now in specref for a WD) instead of the 1.0 version. That is a WG question, that I did not want to decide on. The question is whether we will ever depend on specifically 1.1 features

(At some point, when DID 1.1 becomes a rec, I would expect did-core (or did) to refer to 1.1.)

[wip-abramson]

Thanks, I think this addresses #112 ?

This does partly address #112, although there are similar issues in the terms.html file. Perhaps @iherman you can catch those too in this PR?

[iherman]

Thanks, I think this addresses #112 ?

This does partly address #112, although there are similar issues in the terms.html file. Perhaps @iherman you can catch those too in this PR?

Oops, I did not realize there is also another file. My bad. I have just updated it.